Team Infrastructures Private Limited, Gurgaon V. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

ITA 1564/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1759 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 195; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. Nos ITA No(s) Asst. Year(s) Assessee By Revenue By Appellant Respondent 1. 1462/Del/2022 2020-21 Seema Aggarwal, B2/58, 2 nd Floor, Ashok Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi PAN: AAJPA1159K DCIT, Circle-461), New Delhi Shri Ashok Khandelwal, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 2. 1390/Del/2022 2019-20 Ajit Singh, CA MR Sahu & Associates, House No. 651, 1 st Floor, Sector- 10A, Nr. Union Bank of India, Gurgaon PAN: DUXPS2279R ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon Shri M. R. Sahu, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 3& 4 1284/Del/2021 1285/Del/2021 2018-19 2019-20 Narender Singh Gahlaut, Flat No. 04, RZF 1/382, Gali No. 2, Part-1, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi PAN: ADLPG1507C ITD, CPC, Bengaluru Shri Hemant Jain, Adv Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 5. 1557/Del/2022 2018-19 Sandeep Tondon, A-110, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN: ABUPT0103G ACIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi None Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 6. 1715/Del/2020 2019-20 Sona Fashions Inc, H9B1, Mohan Co- operative Estate, New Delhi PAN: AACFS7353L ADIT, CPC, Bangalore Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 7. 1564/Del/2022 2018-19 Team Infrastructures Private Limited, T457, 3 rd Floor, Palam Corporate Plaza, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon PAN: AACCT5657P DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Shri Sandeep Kumar, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 8&9 1553/Del/2022 1554/Del/2022 2018-19 2019-20 Ram Raji Sharma, C/o. Kunal Aggarwal & Associates, 612, Sixth Floor, Spaze Boulevard, Sohna Road, Sector-47, Gurgaon PAN: AMRPS9953P ITO, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon None Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 10. 1549/Del/2022 2018-19 Ishman International, W-71, Greater Kailash Part-2, New Delhi DCIT, Circle-28(1), New Delhi None Page | 2 PAN: AAAFI7620L 11. 1535/Del/2022 2019-20 Geniehr Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Shop No. 20 WA- 107/1211, Shakarpur, East Delhi, Delhi PAN: AAFCG9829H ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi Ms. Divya, Adv Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 12. 1539/Del/2022 2019-20 Narender Pal Singh, A-18/3, DLF City Phase-1, Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AATPS7490P ACIT, Circle-34(1), Delhi None Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 13. 1497/Del/2022 2018-19 Aztek Private Limited, 30B/1, NEA Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi PAN: AADCA2832J ACIT, Circle-3(2), Delhi Shri Baldev Raj, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 14. 1470/Del/2022 2019-20 Max Maintenance Ltd, C-5/99, Third Floor, New Kondli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi PAN: AAJC8958M ITO, Ward-16(3), Delhi Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 15. 1552/Del/2022 2020-21 Flying Fabrication, The Tax Chamber Advocates & Legal Advisors, D-177, Defence Colony, LGF, New Delhi PAN: AADFF9825H ITO, Ward-4, Gurgaon Ms. Swati Talwar, Adv Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 16. 1595/Del/2022 2020-21 Anju Arora, B-141, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi PAN: AAEPA8685M ITO, Ward-51(1), New Delhi None Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 17. 1577/Del/2022 2019-20 Vikas Joshi, B-156, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi PAN: ACPPJ6246C ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar None Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 18. 1574/Del/2022 2019-20 Ess Kay Fabrications, Plot No. 519, Sector- 37, Gurgaon PAN: AAAFE3257B ITO, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Shri Sandeep Kumar, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR 19. 1565/Del/2022 2018-19 Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd, M-77, M Block Market, Greater Kailash-2, New Delhi PAN: AABCT9862B ACIT, Central Circle-19(1), New Delhi Shri Gourav, CA Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Page | 3 ORDER PER BENCH : 1. The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assessees against the orders passed by appellate authority for various assessment years mentioned hereinabove. 2. Since the issue in all the appeals is common and is related to disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF/ESI on account of delay in deposits as per the respective Acts. Therefore, we clubbed all of them together for the sake of brevity and convenience and disposing the same by way of this consolidated order. However, we are taking ITA No.1462/Del/2022 [Assessment Year 2020-21] as a lead case wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. Action of the CIT (A) in confirming the action of A. O. in making an addition of Rs. 4,64,615/- u/s 36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961 for delayed deposit of employees contribution of EPF and ESI but paid before the due date of filing of return is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Action of the CIT (A) in confirming the action of A. O. in making an addition of Rs. 2,396/- u/s 37 of the I.T. Act 1961 for Interest on delayed deposit of TDS is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Similar grounds with different amounts and assessment years have been raised in other appeals but however, the sum & substance and the issues involved in all the appeals are identical. 4. Before us, Learned AR submitted that additions have been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date. He submitted that though there has been delay in Page | 4 deposit of PF/ESIC Contributions but all the contributions received by the assessee from its employees, have been deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing of return of income by the assessee. He therefore, submitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision of Azamgarh Steel & Power vs. CPC in ITA No.1626/Del/2020 dated 31.05.2021 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi) and various other decisions. 5. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No.1312/Del/2020 order dated 26.08.2021. He also submitted that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 would be applicable to the present case as by the amendment, it has been clarified that provisions of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub clause (x) of Clause (24) of Section 2 applies. 6. Heard and perused the record. As with regard to the grounds arising out of one question of law, on behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the ld. Tax Authorities below have failed to take into consideration the judgments of Hon’ble High courts and also of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal where it is held that the explanation to Clause (va) of Section 36(1) of the Act makes it clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable for submitting of return of income u/s 139 of the Act to the revenue in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross income. Page | 5 7. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that the ld. Tax Authorities below have appropriately gone by the provisions of the relevant Sections which were not ambiguous and he submitted that he stands by the order of Ld. Tax Authorities Below. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and the contentions as raised it can be observed that, admittedly the assessee has deposited the impugned contributions to the PF/ ESI though after due date as prescribed under the relevant provisions of PF / ESI Act but within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. up to the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of income. 9. Regarding the amendments made through Finance Act, 2021, it is specifically mentioned by the legislature that the amendments are effective from 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus: “These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.” 10. Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments shall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment years preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto assessment year 2020-21. This has also been held so in decisions of ITAT Benches including following: (a) ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 16.07.2021 (b) ITAT Hyderabad in Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Limited Vs. ITO, ITA No. 644/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 15.06.2021 Page | 6 (c) `ITAT Jodhpur in Akbar Mohammad Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore ITA No. 108 &109 / Jodh / 2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019- 20, order dated 31.01.2022 11. The Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in ITA No. ITA No.5570/Del/2017, M/s. Express Roadway V. ACIT Circle – 8(2) New Delhi, has discussed the relevant law as below : “We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) held has under: “17. We may only add that if the employees‟ contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra).1 18. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As a consequence, the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed and those filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” 12. We further find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SPL Industries vs. CIT (2011) 9 Taxmann.com 195 (Delhi) held as under: “7. It is apt to note that the Division Bench has taken note of the submission advanced by the revenue that the distinction between employers‟ contribution on the one hand and the employees‟ contribution on the other. On the foundation that when employees‟ contribution was recovered from their salaries / wages that is the trust money in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, recourse of law providing for treating the same as income that the assessee Page | 7 received as the employees‟ contribution would only enable the assessee to claim deduction only on actual payment made by due date specified under the provisions of the Act. The Bench while dealing with the same has opined thus: "11. Before we delve into this discussion, we may take note of some more provisions of the Act. Section 2(24) of the Act enumerates different components of income. It, inter alia, stipulates that income includes any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees. It is clear from the above that as soon as employees contribution towards provident fund or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary / wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'income' at the hands of the assessee. It clearly follows therefrom that if the assessee does not deposit this contribution with provident fund/ESI authorities, it will be taxed as income at the hands of the assessee. However, on making deposit with the concerned authorities, the assessee becomes entitled to deduction under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Section 43B(b), however, stipulates that such deduction would be permissible only on actual payment. This is the scheme of the Act for making an assessee entitled to get deduction from income insofar as employees‟ contribution is concerned. It is in this backdrop we have to determine as to at what point of time this payment is to be actually made." 8. Upon perusal of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the decisions rendered in P.M. Electronics Ltd.(supra) and AIMIL Limited (supra) have correctly laid down the law and there is no justification or reason to differ with the same. In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed.” 13. In the light of aforesaid, this Bench is of the considered view that the interpretation given by the Tax Authorities Below with regard to application of provision the section 36 (1) (va) of the Act is not correct. Page | 8 The grounds of appeal deserve to be sustained. The impugned order, to the extent of grounds raised in appeal, is set aside. 14. In the result, all captioned appeals of the respective assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2022. -Sd/- -Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 29/07/2022 *AK Keot * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI